The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

?php
>

Friday, December 14, 2012

Read the article in Italiano (translated by Yehudit Weisz, edited by Angelo Pezzana)

Every Israeli would say that the alliance between Hamas and Iran is strong and firm, based on the shared world-view between Palestinian Islamic zealots who are Sunni, and Iranian Islamist zealots, who are Shi’ite. Iran has even stronger affiliations with other organizations like Islamic Jihad and the Committees of Popular Resistance, than with Hamas. The anti-Israeli, anti-American and anti-West interest, that Iran shares with these organizations has allowed the world and Israeli politicians to place Iran, Hamas and the rest of the terror organizations into a single framework of Islamic terror.

But matters are not so simple. The conflict between the Sunnis and the Shi’ites, which began approximately 1350 years ago, continues in full strength and severity, and is expressed gruesomely today in the civil war that is currently grinding Syria into dust. The Shi’ite coalition of Iran, Iraq, Hizb’Allah and the Syrian regime is conducting an all-out war against the Sunni coalition of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan and Egypt, which supports the rebels against Asad, most of whom are Sunni, with all of its strength and means. The number of fatalities in the massacre, which has reached almost 50,000 men, women and children, as well as the Iranian involvement in the genocide in Syria, raises a question regarding the Islamic legality of collaboration between Shi’ite Iran and Palestinian organizations, which are Sunni.

A short historical background: The Muslim Arabs conquered Persia in the middle of the seventh century CE and imposed Islam on the Persian nation. In 1501, sociological and political turmoil brought a group of descendants of a sheikh by the name of Safi al-Din to power over the Persian population, and they forced Persia to adopt Shi’ite Islam. Even today, the Sunnis are angry that the Persians adopted Shi’a, because many Sunni Muslims, mainly the Saudi Hanbalis, see Shi’a as a type of heresy.

From the moment the Hamas movement began to depend on the money, weapons and political support of Iran, the question arose as to whether it is permissible for a Sunni to accept help from a Shi’ite, specifically from those who were Sunni until 500 years ago, and have switched affiliation.

Muhammad Asaad Bayud al-Tamimi, an Islamist from a family that is identified with radical Islam in Samaria, published an article this month on the subject, which was “adopted” by hundreds of Internet sites. The title of the article: “A Covenant with the Safavid Shi’ites (Iran) is forbidden by Islam, and if someone engages in such a pact, he forfeits his status as a Muslim”. The title makes clear his position that collaborating with Iran excludes a Muslim from Islam, as if he had become a heretic and converted to another religion. Following the citation of a few passages from the Qur’an that deal with heretics, al-Tamimi writes (my comments in parenthesis):

If we checked all of the passages of the Qur’an that deal with heresy, heretics, and the deeds and beliefs of heretics, it would be clear to us that they apply to the Shi’ites, including those who are Safavids as well as those who are not Safavids. This is especially obvious regarding Amgushi Iran (a tribe of pagan Zoroastrians, a disparaging name for Iranians) who aspire to return the crown of the Amgushi empire (which, at its largest, stretched from Libya and the Balkans in the West to the depths of China in the East) to its former glory. The companions of Muhammad the messenger of G-d, who emphasize the oneness of G-d almighty, eliminated it and extinguished its light, beginning with the era of Abu Bakr (the first caliph, 632-634), through the era of ‘Umar (the second caliph, 634-644) in the battle of Qadisiyya (635) who lives forever in the history of Islam … and who still arouses within us – their descendants and those who continue in their path – the feeling of pride, honor and respect, and at the same time we find that among the descendants of the Persians, the Amgushim pagans, it arouses sour envy.

That is why they keep a historical resentment against the companions of the prophet, against Islam and against the Muslims and especially the Arabs among them, and this resentment passes among them genetically from generation to generation. This is the reason that they acted so energetically to get rid of Islam, because their history testifies to this Satanic goal, and thank G-d that He took it upon himself to defend this nation… “They want to extinguish the fire of G-d with their mouths, but G-d reinforces his approval despite the fact that the heretics do not want this” (a passage from the Qur’an).
They murdered 'Umar (the second caliph), ‘Uthman (the third caliph), ‘Ali (the fourth caliph, the founder of Shi’a) and al-Hussein (the son of ‘Ali who was murdered and butchered at Kerbala in the year 680 by agents of the Umayyad caliph Yazid) in order to sow chaos and discord among the Muslims.

Years and centuries passed, and the first Safavid state known today as Iran came into being, under the leadership of Ismail the Safavid beginning in the 16th century. He revealed his true Amgoshi faith, and his dark and hidden hatred for the messenger of G-d, his companions and his wives, while hiding it with the vain claim that he loves the family of the prophet, even though the members of that family rejected him. Ismail the Safavid slaughtered millions of Muslims who believe in true Islam (Sunni), especially those who were Arabs; he established courts resembling the courts of the Inquisition in Spain, and became one of the pillars of his religion.

He cursed the companions of the prophet, especially Abu Bakr and 'Umar (the first two caliphs, who are described in Sunni Islam as “righteous”) and claimed that they were heretics. He forced people to become Shi’ite, and some did change to Shi’a out of fear, while others remained faithful to Sunni in secret. Iran, which has been Safavid Shi’ite since the 16th century, stabbed the Ottoman (Sunni) state in the back, invaded Iraq, torched Baghdad, desecrated the graves of the companions of the prophet, the conquerors of heretical lands until the advent of the Ottomans, who destroyed the Safavid state in the battle of Galdiran (1514) and killed Ismail the Safavid.

However, Safavid fanaticism remains burning in the hearts of those faithful to Ismail the the Amgushi Safavid; so much so that at the end of the 1970’s, the nationalistic, factional (not Islamic) Iranian revolution occurred under the leadership of Khomeini, who professed (to be a Muslim) with a sort of “takiyya” (deception) in order to lead the Muslims astray. He began to spread slogans as if his revolution is the “revolution of the oppressed Muslims”, who would liberate Palestine. Many Muslims fell victim to this deception, we (the Palestinians) too, but it very quickly was exposed as a lie, a deception and when the fraud was revealed, we returned to correct thinking in time and discovered that the revolution was a “national Persian Amgoshi, sectarian (Shi’ite), Safavid revolution”, whose only aspiration is to avenge the rout of the first battle of al-Qadisiyya (635, the battle in which the army of Muslims routed the Persian army). But Allah sent Saddam Hussein (may Allah have mercy upon him), who is a martyr in our eyes, to fight against the revolution, in order to wage the second battle of Qadisiyya (called the Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988), to feed Khomeini with poison (the chemical missiles that Saddam launched to Teheran) so that he will die (1989) having been conquered, defeated and humiliated. But immediately after the Crusader invasion (forces of the international coalition headed by the US) in the year 2003 to conquer Iraq, the followers of the Safavid Khomeini came to conquer Iraq and form a pact with the crusaders (the Christians from the US and Europe) and the Jews so that they would be able to conquer Iraq more easily. And in exchange, the crusaders, under the leadership of the US, allowed the Shi’ite Safavids to take control of Iraq by means of a Safavid - Zionist – crusader pact, in order to drown Iraq in the blood of the Muslims who are faithful to Allah, the Master of the world, the descendants of the companions of the prophet, and conquerors of heretical lands. They began to murder anyone whose name was 'Umar, abu Bakr, ‘Uthman, Sa’d and other names common to Sunnah. They revealed their evil intentions by establishing satellite channels where they curse and slander the companions of the prophet and the faithful mothers, claiming that they were heretics. They repeat again the claims against Aisha “the mother of the believers”, (Muhammad’s last wife, who is despised by the Shi’ites) despite Allah himself having cleared her name from his throne in the seventh heaven. Thus they act against the wishes of Allah and claim that He does not speak the truth despite His having cautioned the believers not to keep repeating this claim after He had exonerated Aisha. Therefore, are those who repeat this story again after this severe divine warning, truly Muslims??? And this is exactly what the Shi’ites do in their satellite channels, their books, their oral tradition, their religious institutions and their religious texts… they call us, the Muslims, names such as “the fake 'Umars” referring to our beloved one, our leader, our commander, who resides in Paradise - he who extinguished their fire, 'Umar (the second caliph). They slaughtered the Palestinian refugees who were in Iraq (in 2003) which caused most of them to flee for their lives and to gather in three refugee camps on the borders of Iraq with Jordan and Syria under unbearable living conditions (because these two states did not allow Palestinian refugees to pass from Iraq into their territories, Arab solidarity at its worst) until Brazil agreed to host them in its territory.

And the Palestinians are again being slaughtered, this time in Syria, together with the Syrians, by the members of the Safavid ‘Alawite Shi’ite coalition of heretics, and again Palestinian refugee camps are crushed by Iranian weapons and ammunition as the Iranians carry out the religious rulings of the priests of Amgosh and the ayatollahs of Qum, Kerbala and Mazaar a-Sharif (Shi’ite cities in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan).
Now, after having reviewed all of the aspects of the Iranian coalition, and after mentioning the ideological, historical and current facts, we see that a coalition with the Iranians is forbidden according to Shari’a, since it is a coalition with the people most despised by Allah, his prophet and the believers.

And so I appeal to the Muslim youth of our Muslim Palestinian people, who are ready to confront the enemy, to all those who fight under any flag of any organization, movement or party, that have a pact or agreement with Shi’ite, Safavid Iran, to leave this pact while he is still alive, so that he will not die a heretic (because he will not be able to repent).
Some will complain that I call the Shi’ites heretics, and I ask: Can it be that those who do all of this villainy against Islam and its earliest leaders, the “righteous ones”, and claim that we (the Sunnis) have falsified the Qur’an, are Muslims? Who is sinning here, I or they? May Allah spare me from declaring a Muslim to be a heretic, but if the Shi’ites, who do not believe in the foundations of Islam, are not heretics, then who is? Ibn Taymiyya (an Islamic philosopher who lived in the area of Syria between the years 1263 and 1328) said about them that their heresy is worse that of the Jews and Christians. So how can anyone who enters a pact with them be a Muslim? And how can anyone who is slain under their flag not be a martyr? And how can it be that someone declares himself to be a resister (to Zionism and the West) if his faith is contrary to the faith of Islam? This is one big lie and the Safavid project, the other aspect of the Zionist project, hides behind that lie. Is it logical that the Iranians, who own this Safavid project, slaughter us (the Sunni Muslims) in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, while being part of a pact in Palestine? Is this logical? An enemy is an enemy at all times and in every place, since his ideology is the same ideology in all places and at all times.

O, my brothers, youth of Islam; O, all who care about the religion of Allah; O, all who love the prophet and his companions, and take pride in being among those who continue in their path. Islam is dearer to us than our lives, dearer than the world, and even dearer than Palestine…Palestine will be liberated only under the flag of Islam, by those of the true faith, like all the Islamic victories since the War of Badr (624).
Be careful and guard yourselves, and know that one of the basic conditions of victory is “the true faith and faith in Allah”, so how is it possible to collaborate with those of a false faith, which opposes the faith of Muhammad and his prophets, when they join with 'Ali (the fourth caliph, the founder of Shi’a), with al-Hussein (the son of ‘Ali), with the fabricated hidden Imam (the leader of the Shi’ites who disappeared and will return – so they believe – at the end of days) and in all of the members of the family of Muhammad, which is utterly against Islam …”

This concludes the citations from al-Tamimi’s article, which expresses the opinion that many in the Islamic world share. There is one thing he does not say; he does not call for jihad against the Iranians, which contradicts the Muslim obligation to wage jihad against infidels. The reason that al-Tamimi refrains from clearly calling for jihad against the Shi’ites in general and the Iranians in particular may be his desire to remain alive, because such a call might turn him into a target for the knives and bullets of the Iranians and their supporters. Another reason is his desire not to be out of favor with the regime in Jordan, where he lives, because the king fears that declaring the Shi’ites to be infidels will result in a similar declaration about the king himself because of the fact that his regime does not implement Islamic Shari’a literally. But Tamimi’s strongest reason to refrain from calling for jihad against the Shi’ites is that this is exactly the message of al-Qaeda, mainly in Iraq, and he does not want to be identified with such an aggressive message.

Nevertheless, it is important to note that many do not agree with al-Tamimi’s approach and take the logical approach that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, and according to this, Sunnis may join hands with Shi’ite Iran in order to fight their common enemies. It is also important to note that currently there are trends to bring Sunnis and Shi’ites closer together, and even the most eloquent spokesman for political Sunni Islam, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, has called in the past for finding ways to bridge the differences between Sunna and Shi’a which were expressed in al-Tamimi’s article.

Ultimately, each organization decides for itself regarding this matter, and this decision may change over time: when Syria was an orderly state, there was no important reason for the leaders of Hamas to give up the support of Iran, but since the civil war broke out and the slaughter of Sunni citizens began as a result of demonstrations that began in March 2011, collaboration with Iran has become fairly problematic for Hamas. In his article, Tamimi calls on the last Palestinians who are still collaborating with Iran to leave it, and we must wait to see if this call falls on listening ears or will perhaps remain a solitary call in the desert. It depends on the desire of other states like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Turkey to support Palestinian organizations with weapons, money and political support. Is this an impossible scenario? If the Marmara was possible then the possibility of similar developments in the future cannot be discounted. In the Middle East, several scenarios that seemed totally delusional two years ago are being played out today in front of our eyes. Slogans that politicians disseminate might become actual reality: if the Damascus regime falls, the image of Iran will become that of a loser; from under the carpet will come all of those sectarian anti-Shi’ite snakes that al-Tamimi fosters, the Sunni bloc will be encouraged and Israel – as we know – is not the favorite of Mursi, Erdogan and Sheikh Hamed of Qatar.

Since Israel announced that it plans to build in the area of E1 between Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim, a chorus of protest has arisen, led by the president of Turkey, Abdullah Gül, who announced that “Israel is playing with fire”. Without getting too deeply into the the Turkish announcement, nothing good can come from this, because this is Turkey’s way of encouraging Hamas, the ideological ally of the Islamic party that rules in Turkey, to do in Judea and Samaria what it has already done in the Gaza Strip since July of 2007: establish armed and aggressive Islamic emirates. Anyone who thinks or speaks about an Israeli withdrawal in Judea and Samaria must take into account that any area that Israel vacates might turn into a terror swamp, like Gaza. Can anyone promise it will not happen?

In facing a cohesive Sunni front, Israel must appear strong, united and consolidated behind its leadership which knows well that only those who are strong and invincible enjoy peace and stability in the Middle East. In the arid, forsaken and violent area that we live in, if you beg for peace you get a kick in the behind and thrown out of the arena. Here, only he who is ready for war wins peace, and that peace will survive only as long as he presents a credible threat to anyone who dares to conspire to attack him. The Middle East is no place for bleeding hearts, rather it is for those of strong spirit, imbued with a sense of security and faith in the justice of their cause.

Al-Tamimi is an enemy who is not willing to give up his ideology for interests, no matter how important. The question for us is how much we stick to our ideology, and how ready we are to surrender it for other interests.

Dr. Mordechai Kedar (Mordechai.Kedar@biu.ac.il) is an Israeli scholar of Arabic and Islam, a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University and the director of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University, Israel. He specializes in Islamic ideology and movements, the political discourse of Arab countries, the Arabic mass media, and the Syrian domestic arena.

Translated from Hebrew by Sally Zahav with permission from the author.

Source: The article is published in the framework of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University, Israel. Also published in Makor Rishon, a Hebrew weekly newspaper.

The problem with Egypt and many
other Islamic nations is that they are ignorant of what they are
demanding, and are left ignorant by their own media and educational
system. By now it seems apparent that Egyptians do not even want to
learn the truth about Sharia, in case they might reject it -- an act
that would turn them into apostates, eligible for death.

The chaos in Egypt today is an indication of an old culture that has
lost its way and its connection to a great civilization over 3000 years
old. Pure Islamists who hate their ancient history and are threatening
to blow up the pyramids and sphinx as idols of the pharaohs are now back
in full swing to stop any further weakening of Islam by a secular
government. But is it the Islamists' fault or the fault of the Egyptian
public who continually vote in favor of Sharia [Islamic law - "The
Path"]?

Once Islam takes hold of a nation, the turmoil never ends -- between
human nature, which aspires for freedom and dignity, and forces of
domination and oppression, which see and understand nothing in the
political life of a country other than enforcing Sharia law on others.

During the last 1400 years of Islamic domination, Egyptians discarded
their past and adopted the culture of Arabia through the process of
Arabization and Islamization. Islamists in Egypt and in any other
country, for that matter, understand that for their country to remain
Islamic, it must be ruled from the top down by Sharia. Muslim leadership
has no confidence that Islam would survive without government
enforcement through fear, intimidation and harsh punishments. Without
government control and enforcement by means of a tyrannical legal
system, Islamist leaders believe that the religion cannot survive
through choice. That is why, wherever Islam travels, the goal is always
to control government.

Nothing symbolizes the turmoil in Egypt today more than the stalemate
over writing yet another constitution. Only a handful of people have so
far had the courage to publicly call for abolishing Article 2 of the
former constitution, which reads: "Islam is the Religion of the
State…and the principle source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence
[Sharia law]." It seems that Sharia will remain as the source of
legislation and the legal foundation in Egypt.

This should not be surprising: a 2007 survey with 1,000 Egyptian Muslims by the University of Maryland/WorldPublicOpinion.org,
stated that 67% said they wanted a caliphate, 74% wanted strict
application of Sharia, 77% wanted mutilating punishment for theft; 82%
wanted stoning for adultery and 84% wanted execution of apostates. By
Western standards, that is a mandate for Sharia and Islam.

So why are Egyptians now unhappy with Morsi? They wanted Sharia, and
Morsi is giving them Sharia. By Western standards, Morsi has a mandate
to rule by Sharia, so why are Cairo's streets full of rebels chanting
for freedom and democracy? Is this Morsi's fault or the fault of a
confused Egyptian public who do not seem to know what they really want?
Why can't they recognize Sharia law as the "elephant in the room," name
it, reject it and vote accordingly? Why are they not aware that Sharia
forbids any man-made government, such as democracy, which is considered
an abomination and must be eliminated? And how can they be so ignorant
about a legal system under which they demanded to live?

The problem with Egypt and many other Islamic nations is they are
ignorant of what they are demanding, and are left ignorant by their own
media and educational system.

The problem in Egypt is not Mubarak or Morsi, King Farouk or Nasser.
It is the ignorance of Egyptians about basics of their beloved religious
law that they say they want enshrined in their constitution. I recently
asked several Egyptians if they are aware of the following laws in
Sharia pertaining to the Muslim head of state:

It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph (Muslim head of state), even if he is unjust.

A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power, meaning through force.

A Caliph is exempt from charges of murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.

From the laws above, Morsi has not done anything against Sharia, but
not one of the Egyptians I spoke to was aware of any such laws, and that
Morsi's recent power grab was in perfect harmony with the Sharia. By
now it seems apparent that Egyptians are intentionally ignorant about
Sharia and do not even want to take the effort to learn the truth abut
Sharia, in case they they might reject it – an act which would turn them
into apostates, eligible for death. Remaining ignorant and in denial
about the Sharia elephant in the room therefore seems the only option.

By demanding a legal system they do not really want, however,
Egyptians are preventing themselves from having a harmonious moral
foundation upon which the country can survive. The more Egyptians reject
an honest discussion and deeper clarity about what they want, the worse
this problem will get in the future.

Egyptians need to learn how to take responsibility for themselves and
the future of their country, and stop placing blame on their leaders.
They should either accept or reject Islamic tyranny. Whether it is
Egypt, Iran or even Saudi Arabia, what they need is an honest public
discussion to educate the public about what Sharia really is without any
sugar coating, after which they can vote on their constitution. But
will they have the courage to do so? Some Egyptians do have the courage,
but they are still the minority, and they understand that speaking out
would be a death sentence. Without courage, however, change cannot
happen, and without saying what they mean, Egyptians will continue
rewriting their constitution every 50 or 60 years, and stumbling and
falling over and over again into an unending cycle of dictatorships and
revolutions.

Nonie Darwish is the author "The Devil We Don't Know"
and "Cruel and Usual Punishment", and president/founder Former Muslims
United.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3491/egypt-ignoranceCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Why should any country sign an agreement if it will just be invalidated a few years later?

Iran is building nuclear weapons, Syria is slaughtering its citizens,
Libya is being taken over by al-Qaeda, Egypt is threatened with another
Pharaoh, Turkey is working toward rebuilding the Ottoman Empire, and
Christians are being massacred in Egypt, Nigeria and Mali (among other
countries). But last Thursday, the European Commission summoned the
Israeli Ambassador to the European Union (EU) over Israel's plan to
build 3,000 new homes in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem. The
Israeli plans were a response to the United Nations' decision on 29
November to grant the Palestinian Authority the status of a UN
non-member observer state, in direct violation of the UN's own
Resolutions 242, 338, and 1850 -- an overruling the UN Charter
specifically forbids.

The Palestinian move was also in direct violation of its bilateral
September 28, 1995, Oslo II agreements, in which the both the
Palestinians and the Israelis, in Article 31, consented that "nether
side shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the
West Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the Permanent Status
negotiations."

Why should any country sign an agreement if it will just be invalidated a few years later?Canada, in response to the Palestinian Authority's illegal behavior,
immediately recalled its diplomats assigned to the West Bank; however,
the same illegal behavior was lavishly rewarded shortly thereafter by
several European countries who summoned Israel's ambassadors -- a
precedent that can only be understood to signal that, as so often at the
UN, illegal behavior -- as in oil for food, or sex for food -- will be
rewarded -- or at least not reprimanded -- in the future.

Maja Kocijancic, spokeswoman for EU foreign policy chief Catherine
Ashton, emphasized that it is very exceptional for the Commission, the
executive body of the EU, to summon an ambassador.

The ambassador met Ashton's deputy Pierre Vimont, who expressed the
EU's concern about the Israeli building plans. The EU wants the project
annulled: it is said to be "an obstacle to peace." Not the PLO or Hamas
Charters, which call for Israel's destruction, or the hundreds of
rockets fired into at Israel over the last month, or Iran's continual
and illegal -- under both the UN's own Charter and the 1948 Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide -- calls for
genocide in "wiping Israel…": No, no, no these are not threats to peace
worth mentioning or bothering about. The Czech Republic was the only one
of the 27 EU member states to join the US, Canada, Israel, Panama and
four Micronesian island states in voting against the UN resolution to
upgrade the status of the PA within the UN. Twelve EU members, including
Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and all the EU states from
Eastern Europe, were among the 41 UN members who abstained. The
remaining fourteen EU members, consisting of the entire Latin and
Mediterranean bloc and the Scandinavians, were among the 138 nations
that voted in favor of the Palestinian Authority.

There is also some good news, however. In Italy, one of the countries
which backed the recognition of the PA as a UN non-member observer
state, one hundred members of the Italian Parliament protested the
decision of the government to do so. The parliamentarians belong to the
PdL party of former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, which withdrew its
support of the Italian government last week. In Belgium, another
country which supported the enhanced status of the PA within the UN, the
decision led to a rift within the governing center-right MR party. Half
the MR senators oppose the government's pro-Palestinian line.

Nevertheless, it is striking to see that within the EU there is but
one country courageous enough to stand with Israel: the Czech Republic.
Most EU members backed the Palestinian claims. The governments that took
a neutral position by abstaining can only be found in the countries
that suffered under Communist dictatorship, in Germany (previously,
partly under Communist rule), Britain and the Netherlands.

The Scandinavians and the Irish traditionally pursue leftist
international policies which are by definition critical of Israel; the
Mediterranean rim together with Belgium, Luxembourg and Austria, have
since the 1970s and 80s conducted a foreign policy that aims to appease
North Africa and the Arab world.

The dependency on Arab oil and the fact that millions of immigrants
from North Africa have settled within the borders of these EU states
explain this appeasement policy.

Apart from the European Commission, several EU governments
bilaterally expressed their dissatisfaction with the Israeli building
plans. As 14 of the 27 EU members took a pro-Palestinian position in the
UN while thirteen did not, it is unlikely that the EU will impose trade
sanctions over the construction plans. A vocal critical stance will,
however, be taken, also by the twelve EU members that abstained in the
UN.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed her dissatisfaction in a
meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The United
Kingdom followed the French, Spanish, Danish and Swedish example of
summoning the Israeli ambassador over the housing projects. British
Foreign Secretary William Hague said that, although there did not appear
to be any "enthusiasm" in the EU for a move to impose economic
sanctions on Israel, "if there is no reversal [of the Israeli decision]
we will want to consider what further steps European countries should
take."

Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans told the Dutch media that the
Netherlands will raise pressure on Israel to stop its building
projects. It is unlikely that Timmermans will follow the example of his
predecessor Uri Rosenthal, who last year vetoed a critical EU report on
the Israeli settlements. The Dutch ambassador to Tel Aviv urged the
Israeli government to stop the building project.

Meanwhile, the civil servants of the European Commission are pursuing
their anti-Israeli policies. The Commission recently sponsored a
workshop to investigate how to label goods made in the Israeli
"settlements" and prevent them from being sold in Europe. Mary Robinson,
former president of Ireland and UN high commissioner for Human Rights,
and Martti Ahtisaari, former president of Finland and Nobel peace prize
winner, are patrons of a movement to boycott such Israeli products. EU
officials want the products labeled so that they can be differentiated
from other Israeli products. As the EU does not recognize that Judea,
Samaria and East Jerusalem are part of Israel, products from these areas
would be subject to EU import duties.

Last August, the European Commission issued a ruling
ordering EU customs authorities to check the origin of Israeli products
in order to exclude "settlement goods from preferential treatment." The
Commission made a list
of so-called "non-eligible locations" – Jewish towns in Judea and
Samaria – which are to be targeted. "Operators are advised to consult
the list before lodging a customs declaration for releasing goods for
free circulation," the EU document states. The communities on the EU
blacklist are non-eligible for duty-free status under the EU-Israel Free
Trade Agreement.

The EU blacklist is a violation of international free trade; it is also reminiscent of the 1933 Nazi boycott of Jewish products.Peter MartinoSource: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3494/obstacle-to-peaceCopyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Yesterday, I took issue
with the Union for Reform Judaism for condemning planned Israeli
construction in the West Bank’s E-1 region. Many liberal American Jews
would doubtless respond that they don’t object to E-1 remaining Israeli
under an Israeli-Palestinian agreement; they merely object to building
there before such an agreement exists. That, after all, is precisely
what Ehud Olmert said last week when asked how he could condemn the Netanyahu government for doing something he himself supported as prime minister.

Unfortunately, this response betrays a serious lack of understanding
of how the “peace process” actually works. First, as I noted yesterday,
insisting that Israeli construction is an “obstacle to peace” even in
areas that every proposed agreement has assigned to Israel merely
encourages Palestinian intransigence by feeding their fantasies that the
world will someday pressure Israel into withdrawing to the 1967 lines.
Equally important, however, is that in a world where Israeli security
concerns are routinely dismissed as unimportant, construction has proven
the only effective means of ensuring Israel’s retention of areas it deems vital to its security.

In theory, construction shouldn’t be
necessary to stake Israel’s claim, because the world has already
recognized it: UN Security Council Resolution 242, still officially the
defining document of the peace process, explicitly recognized
Israel’s right to obtain “secure” borders by retaining some of the
territory it captured in 1967, since, as then-U.S. Ambassador to the UN
Arthur Goldberg explained, “Israel’s prior frontiers had proved to be
notably insecure.”

But in practice, the only parts of the West Bank that successive
peace plans have envisaged Israel retaining are the ones where there are
just too many Jews to easily remove. As former President George W. Bush
put it in his 2004 letter
to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, “In light of new realities on the
ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it
is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations
will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and
all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the
same conclusion.”

In contrast, the world has generally dismissed Israeli demands to
keep sparsely settled areas, even when they are equally vital for
security. For instance, all Israeli governments have considered military control over the Jordan Valley essential for security, but even Washington hasn’t backed this demand. And the European Union is much worse: It officially views
the entire West Bank as occupied Palestinian territory to which Israel
has no claim whatsoever unless the Palestinians allow it.

For this reason, Israel should long since have built in E-1–an area every Israeli premier has deemed vital
for security–rather than leaving it vacant at the urging of successive
U.S. administrations. But the issue received new urgency after the UN
overwhelmingly recognized
a Palestinian state last month “on the Palestinian territory occupied
since 1967.” With virtually the entire world having just declared that
Israel has no right to any part of the West Bank, it has become
imperative for Israel to strengthen its claim via the only means that
has ever proven effective: by building.

The question now is whether Israel will actually do so, or whether
its government will once again sacrifice the country’s long-term
security needs on the altar of global opposition.Evelyn GordonSource: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/12/13/why-israel-has-to-build-in-e-1/Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

U.S. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers: The international community should not accept any assurances from Syrian officials that they will not be used • Assad's forces have fired Scud-style ballistic missiles against rebels in recent days.

Syria's chemical weapons could be used at "a moment's notice" and the international community should not accept any assurances from Syrian officials that they will not be used, U.S. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said on Wednesday.

U.S. and other Western officials recently issued sharp warnings to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad not to deploy chemical weapons. Syria called those warnings a "pretext for intervention" in the civil war.

Rogers, a Republican, told Reuters in an interview that the Syrian government's activities related to chemical weapons were a shift in posture and a major concern.

"I believe that they have put elements of their chemical weapons program in a condition of which they could be used at a moment's notice, which is very different from before," Rogers said.

"And some notion that they have promised not to use them, I don't think the international community ... should take that on face value," he said.

"This is a regime that's getting more desperate by the day. They have affirmatively put elements of their chemical weapon program in a position for use, that is something that we should all be concerned about."

His comments came amid reports that Assad's forces had fired Soviet-era Scud ballistic missiles against rebels in a significant escalation of the nearly two-year-old conflict that has already killed more than 40,000 civilians.

Rogers said more information was needed before he could say for sure whether the Scuds had been used.

"Some of the sourcing I've seen on the material just doesn't make me feel comfortable. We've seen a lot of mistakes based on social media, we're going to need more than that," he said.

But reports about the use of Scud-style weapons and the changed posture on chemical weapons suggested desperation on the part of Assad's government, Rogers said.

But he added: "It would not be unusual for a regime that possesses some fairly sophisticated weapons systems in these last, I argue days and months, or days and weeks, of a pretty desperate regime to use the weapons at its disposal.

"So Scuds, and I make the next leap of chemical weapons, I think is of real concern."

Rogers has just returned from a visit to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia where he discussed Syria and other security issues with officials. Arab League officials want to see the United States step up its role on Syria, he said, adding that he was not referring to military action.

"The United States has a unique capability to deal with these," Rogers said, referring to Syria's chemical weapons. He would not describe the capability.

"I sensed a real frustration from our Arab League partners, frustration with the United States. I believe that we need to step up our role, and I am not talking about military, I'm just talking about U.S. influence and leadership and bringing unique capabilities that only the United States has to the table in these discussions," Rogers said.

"And again that doesn't mean boots on the ground. It does mean that we have unique capabilities that we should at least offer as a part of the discussion of how we prevent the use of these chemical weapons and the sheer humanitarian crisis in the region that I think would be created by their use."

Border Policewoman who shot a Palestinian in Hebron pointing a gun at her colleague. "I rushed out of my position realizing that I had only a number of seconds because my fighter was in mortal danger. I saw that the two were struggling with each other. I found an angle that allowed me to open fire quickly and I fired off one round" • After investigation, handgun turned out to be fake.

The Border Policewoman who shot the Palestinian boy in Hebron.

|Photo credit: Oren Nachshon

Scenes from the start of a Third Intifada? IDF troops in Hebron on Thursday.

"Your end is near." Soldier's photo published with a threat.

|

Photo credit: Facebook

Fresh riots broke out in the flashpoint city of Hebron on Thursday as a Palestinian youth shot and killed by Israeli Border Police on Wednesday was buried. Dozens of Palestinians hurled rocks and firebombs at IDF troops, who responded with crowd dispersal munitions. The Palestinians report five people injured in the protest. An Israel Border Policewoman, 19, shot and killed a Palestinian youth on Wednesday night in Hebron after the latter pointed a handgun at the head of another Border Policeman at a checkpoint near the Cave of the Patriarchs.

It was only after police forensics teams investigated the scene that it was discovered that the gun the Palestinian youth was brandishing was fake, Border Police commander Maj. Gen. Amos Yakov told Army Radio on Thursday morning. Yakov said that any Border Police officer would have acted the same way, as the handgun looked real. Yakov said the policewoman acted quickly and correctly when she assessed that her colleague's life was in danger. "We're talking about Hebron, which is a volatile area. And it was dark and cold. So when you look at the gun used, in daylight it looks very real, so in the darkness in a tense situation it looked very real," Yakov added. The Palestinian Maan News Agency identified the man as Muhammad Ziad Awad Salaymah,17. Salaymah's brother was reportedly a terrorist released in the Gilad Schalit prisoner swap deal and banished to the Gaza Strip.

Riots broke out after the incident, with scores of Palestinians hurling stones and firebombs at troops stationed near the Cave of the Patriarchs. The IDF is on high alert in Hebron, a flashpoint city with a long history of confrontation between Israelis and Palestinians. Tensions are running high in Hebron and other areas of the West Bank. The incident in Hebron is the latest in a series of confrontations between Israeli forces and Palestinians in the West Bank since Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas received nonmember state status from the United Nations General Assembly on November 29.

According to a report on Israel Radio on Thursday, the IDF is no longer denying that there is a signifcant escalation of violence in the West Bank. The IDF has been carrying out more arrests and raids recently, the report stated. Earlier in the week an IDF patrol was confronted by Palestinian Authority Police in Hebron, after which a riot broke out and the unit had to extricate itself. On Thursday and Friday, Hamas is set to hold rallies in the West Bank with the approval of the Palestinian Authority. The rallies are also likely to raise tensions in the area. Also on Thursday, police arrested three Palestinian teenagers, residents of east Jerusalem, on the suspicion that they attacked a Jewish man near the Nablus Gate in Jerusalem's Old City on Wednesday. The victim suffered light wounds, and the Palestinians reject the suspicions against them. Furthermore, stones were thrown at Israeli vehicles in northern Samaria on Wednesday night, causing no injuries but vehicles were damaged.

A military source told Israel Radio on Thursday that the IDF does not limit soldiers' authorization to open fire when necessary. "We obligate every soldier to think about whether he or she feels a threat, and if they do, they are authorized to open fire. A soldier in a life threatening situation needs to use his weapon."

The source added that in the last year there have been more incidents involving unnecessary fire than incidents in which soldiers withheld fire.

From an initial investigation into Wednesday's incident, the Border Police said Wednesday that at around 6:30 p.m. a Palestinian youth approached a Border Police station 160 between the Cave of the Patriarchs and Kiryat Arba, and aroused the suspicion of the police officers. The latter ordered the Palestinian to identify himself, who then produced an ID card. Shortly afterward, the Palestinian pulled out a gun and rushed one of the policemen, aiming the gun at the policeman's head. A Border Policewoman stationed at the post opened fire at the Palestinian, fatally wounding him. Micky Rosenfeld, a spokesman for Israel Police, said that "a Palestinian pulled a pistol in front of border police on patrol in Hebron" near a flashpoint holy site after darkness fell. "Police opened fire at him, critically injuring him. He was later pronounced dead at the scene," Rosenfeld said. Rosenfeld said an initial investigation indicated "he pulled a fake pistol. They [officers at the scene] thought it was real ... it's not clear why he did that."

The policewoman who shot the Palestinian said that she saw the Palestinian pointing the gun at her colleague. "I rushed out of my position realizing that I had only a number of seconds because my fighter was in mortal danger. I saw that the two were struggling with each other. I found an angle that allowed me to open fire quickly and I fired off one round. Once that separated them, I fired two more rounds. The Palestinian dropped, with his gun. I wasn't afraid and I didn't hesitate and I did the right thing. I think that any other fighter in my place would have done exactly the same thing. I acted as is expected of me. We're here to protect and to serve, and the life of my friend was in danger," the policewoman said. The Border Police spokesperson said that sappers discovered that the pistol was fake and made of metal.

While Israeli newspapers published a photograph of the policewoman on their front pages with her face blurred, some photos of the woman appeared on Arabic Facebook pages with her face shown. Under the photo is the following caption: "Wanted for international justice — we demand that this murderer be tried at The Hague Court."

Saudi plans indicate that commercial ambitions outweigh the protection of the spiritual and cultural history of Islam.

Wahhabi
extremists and property developers affiliated with the Saudi
authorities are furthering plans to demolish the oldest sections of the
Grand Mosque in Mecca, the location to which all the world's Muslims
turn in prayer. They apparently intend to remove features of the site
dating back many centuries, such as columns placed in the Grand Mosque
during the eighth century CE. Also, porticos designed by the legendary
Ottoman architect Mimar Sinan (c. 1489/1490-1588 CE), whose
achievements, and those of his personal disciples, are found at many
places in the Islamic culture area, from Bosnia-Hercegovina to India,
are slated for destruction.

Public dismay about the proposed wrecking, to be done under the
pretext of renovation and modernization, has been notable. In response,
the Imam and Friday preacher of the Grand Mosque, Abdul Rahman
Al-Sudais, a prominent Wahhabi fanatic and hatemonger, has promised that
the areas of the Grand Mosque originating in the Abbasid Arab caliphate
(750-1258 CE) and the Ottoman period of rule in Mecca and Medina would
not be touched.

Al-Sudais, head of the official Presidency for the Two Holy Mosques,
and with the rank of a minister in the royal court, has told the
pan-Arab daily newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat [The Middle East]
that the remodeling of the Grand Mosque, would be completed over three
years, and would be limited to minor expansions intended to make tawaf
(circumambulation of the Ka'bah, the sacred structure at the center of
the mosque) easier during the annual Hajj pilgrimage. He stipulated that
"removal will be limited to (the first Saudi expansion, 60 years ago),
without disturbing the Ottoman porticos, except for arches and
lights…maintaining the old area, reduced in proportion to align with the
zone of circumambulation." However, some of the Abbasid and Turkish
area including the portico's have already been demolished, and
authorities stated that these portico's will inadvertently have to be
removed during expansion work between the two hills of Safa and Marwa.The Saudi dailies Okaz and Saudi Gazette reported that construction work on the Grand Mosque already commenced in mid-November, with the Saudi Gazette
boasting, in the idiom of architectural gigantism favored currently in
Saudi Arabia, that the project includes "the two largest tower cranes
ever built in the 21st century in the eastern and western parts of the
mosque."

A cable-car system has also been proposed to serve old and disabled pilgrims by linking the mataf, at which pilgrims walk around the Ka'bah, with the masa'a,
a location where Hajj participants run symbolically between two hills,
Safa and Marwa. Again reflecting the Saudi fascination with oversized
construction works, the Saudi Gazette asserted that upon its
completion the Grand Mosque would accommodate 130,000 pilgrims per hour
in the march around the Ka'bah. The current average is 52,000 per hour.As noted in the Arab News, the top floor of the mataf
would be altered to add a moving walkway carrying pilgrims around the
Ka'bah. The new plan would provide access to the circumambulation area
from outside the walls of the Grand Mosque, without crossing the floor
of the mosque. Bridges and pedestrian lanes are to be included in the
structure to "reduce crowding" during the Hajj, at the same time as,
illogically, the Wahhabis claim they will greatly expand the capacity
for pilgrims.

Saudi and other Muslim sources express concern that Al-Sudais and his
Wahhabi accomplices are lying about their intentions in the project.
Dr. Hatoon Al-Fassi, a female Meccan native, distinguished Sufi, and
history professor at King Saud University in Riyadh, who, let it be
noted, refuses to cover her face in public with the Wahhabi-imposed niqab
or face veil, has accused the Saudi Bin Laden construction
conglomerate, which is supervising the rebuilding of the mosque, of
seeking to "turn Mecca into Las Vegas." Specifically, Al-Fassi charges
that the reconstruction plans include "tearing down the ancient
Ottoman-style galleries and rebuilding 'identical' galleries further
away." Al-Fassi cites an unnamed official of the Saudi Ministry of Hajj
Affairs as the source of this information.Al-Fassi alleges further that the new galleries would support "new towers… featuring hotels, restaurants, and malls."

The precincts of the Grand Mosque already include new buildings,
which house a clock tower and hotel complexes that dwarf the Mosque and
the Ka'bah. Saudi plans indicate that commercial ambitions outweigh the
protection of the spiritual and cultural legacy of Islam.

In an admission that the grandiose refurbishing of Mecca has harmed
the Islamic heritage of the sacred city, Muhammad Abdullah Idris, author
of the architectural upgrading study, told the Arab News that
demolition blasts during erection of the outsized and overbearing recent
structures near the Grand Mosque have undermined the strength of the
mosque and, especially, its pillars.

Saudi King Abdullah ordered a halt to a proposed expansion of the
Prophet's Mosque in Medina after a major article was published in The Independent
(London) by the Islamic Heritage Research Foundation, exposing the
Wahhabi plans and opposing to the concept. The article was re-published
worldwide by other newspapers and generated significant media coverage.
The Medina expansion would have involved serious historical vandalism.
It is to be hoped that similar opposition will move the King to halt the
defacement of the Grand Mosque in Mecca.

The “red-green alliance” in Tennessee between the liberal-left and
Islamists is alive and well but made even more novel with the
participation of Republican Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam.

Never one to shy away from Obama’s agenda for the U.S., Governor
Haslam’s push to elevate the political status of Muslims in his state
must leave Tennesseans wondering if their Republican governor is
actually a Democrat.

Governor Haslam’s promotion of the Islamist agenda in his state
progressed from having his Commissioner of Safety and Homeland Security
work behind the scenes to support and partner with
the American Muslim Advisory Council to having the Muslim Council train
state law enforcement and Department of Children’s Services staff.
Meanwhile, he appointed shariah compliant finance specialist, Samar Ali
as International Director for the TN Department of Economic and
Community Development.

Unfortunately for the Governor, his appointment of Samar Ali (whose donation to Democrat Harold Ford, Jr. and later the Obama Victory Fund
didn’t raise an eyebrow) resulted in harsh criticism from Tennessee
conservatives. Attempting to deflect criticism, the Governor’s office
publicly released
Ms. Ali’s credentials but was careful to redact her extensive
experience and expertise in shariah finance. But the release included
references to her father’s curriculum vitae to convince the public that this family from Waverly was 100% Tennessean.

No one can dispute the accomplishments of Dr. Subhi Ali, Samar’s
father, but his very active Red/Green political life was conspicuously
omitted by the Governor. For example, Dr. Ali and his wife were
multi-year donors (see here and here)
to pro-Hamas/anti-Israel Democrat Cynthia Mckinney, political support
consistent with Dr. Ali’s long-standing service to the Jerusalem Fund.

The Jerusalem Fund – The Holy Land Foundation II?

The Jerusalem Fund (originally the American Palestine Education
Foundation) was founded in 1977 by Dr. Hisham Sharabi who served as
Chairman of the Board until he died in 2005. Despite self-description
as “non-political”,
review of the Fund’s leadership, programming, and issues of focus,
reflects an overtly pro-Palestinian/pro-Hamas/anti-Israel posture.
Documents currently available show that Subhi Ali joined the Jerusalem
Fund’s Board in 2000, became Vice Chair in 2003 and has served as Chairman from 2005 until the present.

The Jerusalem Fund is comprised of 3 programs:

1) The Palestine Center offers Information Briefs such as the “Rising support for Hamas and the Roots of its Success in Palestine “ (“One
of Hamas’ more distinctive qualities is its emphasis on Islam. In
addition to its self-proclaimed role as a legitimate and honest
replacement to Fateh, Hamas also acts as a religious alternative to the
secular Fateh.”)

2) The Humanitarian Link,which provides grants for
social services in the “Occupied Palestinian Territories” and supports
the Palestine Diabetes Institute.

(Originally named the “Occupied Land Fund,” the Holy
Land Foundation was the largest Islamic charity in the U.S., which also
claimed the need for humanitarian relief for Palestinians in the
occupied territories. The Holy Land Foundation was successfully
prosecuted in 2007 for funding Hamas).

3) The Gallery, which promotes the Palestinian and Arab cultures.

Fund founder Hisham Sharabi advocated a Palestinian “armed struggle” if necessary, to end Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. His 1998 paper “The Palestinians: Fifty Years Later,” called
for Americans of Palestinian, Arab and Muslim backgrounds to organize
using their “constitutional rights as Americans” to “influence a
dangerously biased [toward Israel] American policy in the Middle East.”

WISE was founded, incorporated and led by Sami al-Arian who was subsequently sentenced
in 2006 to prison and deportation because of his leadership of the
U.S.-designated terrorist organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ).

WISE was named
in a federal indictment as part of a criminal organization whose
members and associates engaged in acts of violence including murder,
extortion, money laundering, and fraud. They operated worldwide
including the Middle District of Florida.WISE Board members included:

Basheer Nafi - charged with
“conspiracy to murder, maim or injure persons outside the United
States” and a significant leader of the PIJ; was indicted by the FBI in
absentia.

Mazin an Najjar- a
founding member of WISE, was arrested on secret FBI evidence that he
supported terrorism and was associated with the Palestinian Islamic
Jihad and a threat to national security. He was deported from the U.S.
in 2002.

WISE served as the U.S. money-receiving front for PIJ and while Sharabi was a board member, funneled payments to the PIJ martyrs through the Islamic International Arab Bank
(Arab Bank). In addition to a DOJ investigation begun in 2004, a
lawsuit filed in 2007 by victims of the PIJ martyrs against Arab Bank
(ongoing in 2012), alleged that Arab Bank financed Palestinian terrorism
by using Hamas and PIJ “martyr kits” to make payments to suicide bombers’ surviving family members.

Samar Ali worked as a legal intern at the Arab Bank at the time the
lawsuit was filed. How did she end up at a bank being investigated for
laundering money for her father’s close associate’s organization? Does
Governor Haslam know about this?

WISE was funded by the Muslim Brotherhood’s International Institute on Islamic Thought (IIIT). Tarik Hamdi, identified as an officer/staff member of WISE is listed in a federal affidavit as providing material support to Al-Qaeda, Bin Laden and the PIJ. He left WISE to work for IIIT. He subsequently left the U.S. and relocated to the Middle East.

The IIIT was named in the 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document
“An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group
in North America” as one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s likeminded
“organizations of our friends.”

Under Sharabi and Subhi Ali’s leadership, the Jerusalem Fund
partnered with Life for Relief & Development (LIFE) which was raided
by the FBI in 2006 “less than two months” after CAIR sent out an “Action Alert”
asking people “to aid in collecting and sending [relief] supplies to
LIFE.” The final destinations of the supplies were Lebanon and Gaza,
where Israel was battling Hezbollah and Hamas. LIFE has been a “partner”
organization to numerous groups with terror ties, including Human
Concern International, Jerusalem Fund, ICNA Helping Hand, Islamic Relief
and Human Appeal International.”

Subsequent to the raid, LIFE’s public relations coordinator, Muthanna
al-Hanooti was indicted as an agent for Saddam Hussein’s government
paid to manipulate U.S. officials. He pled guilty and faces a four year
prison sentence. Al-Hanooti had also served as executive director of
CAIR Michigan in 2000.

Time and again cases are prosecuted and it is proven that an Islamic
charity has been used to raise and funnel money to support Islamic
terrorist organizations. Looking at terrorism
financing cases such as the Holy Land Foundation, WISE, Kindhearts,
Benevolence International Foundation, al-Haramain Foundation, Global
Relief Foundation and others, shouldn’t a prosecutor be asking whether
Hisham Sharabi’s legacy, the Jerusalem Fund now chaired by Dr. Subhi
Ali, is following suit?

It looks like the Jerusalem Fund is registered in every state except
Louisiana. Tennesseans and concerned citizens in other states should be
looking carefully at who is doing what in their state offices. Be
assured, the Red/Green alliance is busy while we sleep.David James Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/david-james/tennessees-troubling-islamist-network/Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Applying Double Standards by Requiring of Israel a Behavior Not Expected or Demanded of any Other Democratic Nation

The
leniency with which the European Union (EU) judges Palestinians’
reforms compared to the strictness of EU demands for reform by the Turks
reveal Europeans’ duplicity and lack of integrity, and should
disqualify the European Union from playing any significant role in the
Middle East peace process, under the guise of being an honest broker.

EU
hypocrisy is undoubtedly noticed when one examines and compares the own
benchmarks of the EU as applied to a country-candidate [for example
Turkey] waiting to join the European Union on the one-hand, and the
benchmarks the EU is applying toward the Palestinians who seek to have a
state, on the other hand.

European yardsticks for Palestinians, a hostile society, joining the Family of Nations amounts to praise for fabricated non-existent reforms and calls to drop the required incremental progress
from the Roadmap. An end to violence and democratic reform that
Palestinians have not even begun is tolerable. All of this in order to
forge the way for immediate establishment of a Palestinian state, one which will endanger the very survival of a free and democratic Israel.

The historic decision of the European Commission in mid-December 2004 that Turkey is now ready to begin
full negotiations on joining the European Union is an excellent
opportunity to benchmark the way Europeans, members of the quartet,
judge Turks, and how they judge Palestinians.

Keep
in mind the goals and the ramifications of each: The Turks’ goal is
membership in the European Union – a political union that the Europeans
already say will have an iron-clad reversibility clause for Turkey if it fails to live up to its promises.

The Palestinians’ goal is sovereignty as a State – status for which there is no reversibility mechanism if Palestine turns into a rogue state. Logically, the yardsticks of judging readiness
should be at least equal, if not more stringent for Palestinians, a
society that consciously and purposely sacrifices its own youth for
political gain and tactical advantage, with a leadership that champions
and praises suicide bombers.

For
50 years – since 1963, Turkey has knocked on Europe’s door requesting
membership in the EU. The Europeans, however, have been in no rush to
invite a Muslim country into their midst, even if it is the most
westernized and most democratic Muslim country in the Middle East.
Although Turkey is already a strategic partner in NATO and some 4
million of its citizens are peaceful and productive guest workers in
Europe, these facts seem not to persuade the European Union. Only 36 years later, in 1999, was Turkey accepted as a candidate
, with no timeframe for actual negotiations. At the close of 2004, after
five years of far-reaching Turkish constitutional and legal reform, the
EU concluded that Turkey had reached a point where negotiations could
even commence “under certain conditions.”But it is far too premature to break out the champagne.

Negotiations are expected to take ten to fifteen years, and even then “the outcome is not a foregone conclusion,” declared Romano Prodi, then President of the European Commission.

The first yardstick for progress is to meet the Copenhagen Political Criteria adopted in June 1993 by the EU, which states:

“Membership criteria require that the candidate country must have achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, rule of law, human rights, and respect for and protection of minorities.”

Olli
Rehn, then the member of the European Commission responsible for EU
Enlargement, made it clear in an address to the European Parliament that
there are no ‘discounts’ for Turkey.

“These
criteria, the fundamental values on which the European Union is based,
are not subject to negotiation” and [there will be] “a suspension
mechanism in case of serious and persistent breach of democratic
principles.”

The
fundamental freedoms Rehn cites include “women’s rights, trade union
rights, minority rights, and problems faced by non-Muslim religious
communities” and “consolidation and broadening” of legal reforms
including “alignment of law enforcement and judicial practice with the
spirit of the reforms” and a host of other demands. In fact, Europe
demands a complete ‘makeover,’ from women’s rights to recycling of
trash.

Like
Turkey’s appeal for EU membership, realization of Palestinian
aspirations was supposed to be performance-based. The timetable embedded
in the Oslo Accords for establishment of limited Palestinian
self-determination – internal self-rule – was five years (envisioned to
be consummated in 1999). The Oslo Process hinged on the Palestinian
leadership abandoning armed struggle and negotiating an end to the
conflict, and establishing the infrastructure for enlightened self-rule.
This proviso was never met.The latest scheme – the
three-phase Roadmap plan adopted by the Quartet in May 2003 – speaks of
full independence for Palestinians within three years (envisioned by
2005).
Stage II, which supported establishment of an independent Palestinian
state with provisional borders and attributes of sovereignty within a 6
month period hinged on compliance with Stage I, which
demands “unconditional stoppage of violence” and steps towards
comprehensive reform of the Palestinian Authority.

Romano Prodi’s plea for:

“Profound
reflection and clear precautions” in Europe, saying it is imperative
for Europeans to prevent Turks from “weakening the structure we have
been building for over 50 years.”

The
same sensitivity and prudence that the EU takes toward the Turks, and
their effect on European safety and stability is hardly evidenced when
it comes to dangers that the Palestinians pose towards weakening the
structure that Israel has built for nearly 64 years, a structure
that has propelled it from the “developing nation” status it held in the
early 1950s, to membership among the “important emerging economies”
today.

Turks
have been scrutinized by the EU to evaluate Turkey’s readiness for
membership in the European Union – that is, its ability to live
side-by-side with England, France, Germany, Spain, Italy and other EU
members without Turks being a detriment to theirneighbors.Parallel
to this process, the EU has been evaluating the Palestinian Authority’s
readiness for statehood – that is, Palestinians’ ability to live
side-by-side with Israel without being jeopardy to their neighbor.
While the goals are different, the EU has declared in both cases that
the realization of the two goals both require the respective Middle
Eastern society to undergo far-reaching reform, to adopt western values
and western standards of conduct.